Fr. Pavone on the use of graphic images of abortion

[Ani_Ibi]

Karen:

Ani Ibi, Philothea, bmmckinney, estesbob, what are the ages of your children?

I do not discuss my family with strangers over the internet. Moreover it is against the forum rules for you to request this information.

Banned topic 11. Solicitation of personal information (e.g., age, income, or location), beyond that freely offered by members through inclusion in their public profiles.

By the way, why haven’t you included our good buddy vern humphrey? What is he chopped liver these days?

Karen:

What is the age of Father Pavone’s children?

Guess what? You just got yourself some homework. Email the good father and ask him yourself. Let us know how he replies to you. We will be praying that his reply has some effect on your heart. May your eyes too be blessed.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Karen:

Ani Ibi, Philothea, bmmckinney, estesbob, what are the ages of your children?

I do not discuss my family with strangers over the internet. Moreover it is against the forum rules for you to request this information.

Banned topic 11. Solicitation of personal information (e.g., age, income, or location), beyond that freely offered by members through inclusion in their public profiles.

By the way, why haven’t you included our good buddy vern humphrey? What is he chopped liver these days?

Karen:

What is the age of Father Pavone’s children?

Guess what? You just got yourself some homework. Email the good father and ask him yourself. Let us know how he replies to you. We will be praying that his reply has some effect on your heart. May your eyes too be blessed.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

You’re just being facetious now.

Please do not descend to the level of personal attack. If you have nothing more to add to your OPINION, then own up to the fact. Inventing issues does not lend credibility to your pov.

seekerz:

Nobody, not Philothea53 and not me, ever wrote that Fr Pavone says he doesn’t get complaints.

My comment was addressed to you and no one else. This is what you said:

seekerz:

Because he doesn’t say he get complaints it proves he doesn’t get them? I need a moment to wrap my head around this unique concept.

Visitors to this thread can read what you said for themselves. Let the record speak for itself.

seekerz:

Far be it from me to question the integrity of a priest.

Then don’t. Retract your statement.

seekerz:

I’m a Catholic - I know better.

You should know better even if you are not Catholic.

[QUOTEv]
I also know there are members of the clergy who do not agree with the indiscriminate use of graphic photos of abortion.

Who? Anyone walking in Fr Pavone’s shoes?

seekerz:

I respect those on both sides of the issue.

You have not persuaded me of this.

 

[KarenNC]

Maybe at some point one might consider that this someone wants to beat a dead horse (sorry for the sick analogy.) You want to pick posts apart - go for it.

Actually that is what discussion and debate are about–examining and discussing the merit of each other’s points. Only occasionally does it devolve rather into calling the other person the spawn of Satan, accusing them of posting under multiple names to stir up trouble, and other namecalling rather than actually examining the merits of the arguments presented.

You’ve not been able to show that your assertions of long-term (or even short-term) psychological damage to any children is provable. Everything you’ve said has been opinion.

It’s been a while, so I will refer you back to the studies I referenced in post #229
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170857&page=16 or post 366
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170857&page=25
(sorry, I can reference the page, but not sure how to link to a specific post)

These are not my opinions.

I think you are arguing because you are stubborn and don’t want to admit it because you’ve gone so far and now your pride is in the way. At least, I would prefer to think it is pride rather than that you are truly pro-abortion and using this as an angle.

Oh, I freely admit that I’m stubborn but in this particular instance I am continuing to argue because I believe that I am right and that I have a responsibility to speak out against practices that I believe are detrimental to young children, regardless of the nobility of the cause. I am capable of conceding that you may have a point if you can present some objective evidence that there is no other possible way to effectively work against abortion.

I really do remain confused as to how one can continually construe statements that the only places and circumstances in which I object to the use of these images is in the indiscriminate showing of them to preschoolers without allowing their parents a reasonable opportunity to avoid them constitutes a “pro-abortion angle.”

Oh, yeah, I asked what method you would have us use to get this information to the public that hasn’t already been tried. You never answered.

That, frankly, has no relevance to whether or not you can show evidence supporting your statements that this particular method is indeed not only effective, but more effective, than any other. So far, opinion and testimonials are all that have been provided. You do not seem willing to accept that opinion and testimonials are adequate evidence that these images are inappropriate, so there is no reason in the world that your opinion and testimonials should carry any more weight.

 

[seekerz]

You said this…

For Fr Pavone to say he doesn’t get complaints when he gets them would be to question the truth of his portrayal of the evidence. Be as dumbfounded as you like.

In response to this comment of mine…

Because he doesn’t say he get complaints it proves he doesn’t get them? I need a moment to wrap my head around this unique concept

It will be clear to any reasonable person that I never accused Fr Pavone of saying anything, I asked how his not saying he gets complaints proves he doesn’t get them. And yes, there are reasons such as confidentiality that prevent priests from saying everything that is communicated to them.

You’re entitled to your opinion, you’re not entitled to put words in my mouth just so you can criticize them.

 

[KarenNC]

I do not discuss my family with strangers over the internet. Moreover it is against the forum rules for you to request this information.

Banned topic 11. Solicitation of personal information (e.g., age, income, or location), beyond that freely offered by members through inclusion in their public profiles.

Did I ask your age, income or location?

I ask because I have been repeatedly told that the opinions of those who use these pictures is of more weight than the opinions of those who do not as to whether they are effective—that because they use these posters they automatically should be assumed to have more credibility.

On that basis, I am trying to ascertain why those who offer this are not willing to accept as equally valid the opinions of those of us (and others) who actually have young children that these images are inappropriate–to not give our experience equal credibility. It seems reasonable, therefore to establish that those who are claiming that these photographs of mutilated corpses of babies are beneficial or of no interest to children actually have any direct experience at all with young children.

Philothea’s comment, for instance, that children ages 2-7 never noticed anything beyond the ends of their noses, which is in diametric opposition to every experience I have had with children in this age range, was the first to bring the question to mind and lead me to question whether she had had her children’s vision checked.

There was certainly no hesitation or outcry against the demand that those of us who oppose the indiscriminate use of such images provide a detailed resume of our prolife activities to establish our credibility.

By the way, why haven’t you included our good buddy vern humphrey? What is he chopped liver these days?

Vern has already stated that he has young grandchildren.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

It will be clear to any reasonable person that I never accused Fr Pavone of saying anything

Instead of saying something outright, you used innuendo. It will be clear to any reasonable person what that innuendo was about.

Let the record speak for itself.

seekerz:

I asked how his not saying he gets complaints proves he doesn’t get them.

You’ve already said this. Numerous times. The bottom line is that, by saying this, you open a possibility in the reader’s mind that Fr Pavone is withholding relevant evidence from his teachings. That possibility does not exist in reality, but only in your unsubstantiated OPINION.

Moreover, you seek to challenge Philothea’s evidence without offering any of evidence of your own to support your challenge. To make matters worse, you raise unfounded questions as to Fr Pavone withholding relevant information.

Let the record speak for itself.

seekerz:

And yes, there are reasons such as confidentiality that prevent priests from saying everything that is communicated to them.

Do you think Fr Pavone would withhold information this vital when he could report it quite easily by withholding the identities of the women from whom he got such alleged information. You are grasping at straws. You are inventing ‘evidence’ to bolster your point of view.

seekerz:

You’re entitled to your opinion, you’re not entitled to put words in my mouth just so you can criticize them.

Moreover, Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. As I have explained to you numerous times now, let the record speak for itself.

 

[boppaid]

With all respect, I see use of PDE here as a cop-out to justify what some people have already decided they want to do. It’s not the first issue with which I see this happening either.

THIS was what I was trying to say earlier. I used the term “getting off on a technicality” but I like your words better, “cop-out to justify”.

 

[boppaid]

Your desire for an answer to such a stupid question will be ignored.

Translated, I think that means, “I don’t know the answer.”

 

[boppaid]

He is a priest. What valid reason could he have for not accurately portraying the evidence which his team collected?

I’m sorry, but aren’t priests sinners as well? Of course I’mnot saying he is sinning in this instance, but to say **the reason **he is not accurately portraying the evidence is because he is a priest, well that seems silly. I’ve seen priests do things wrong all the time.

That said, I do believe he is accurately portraying the evidence which he team collected. But isn’t that antedoctal evidence?

 

[Philothea53]

Translated, I think that means, “I don’t know the answer.”

Nope, meant it was stupid question. Simple. Stupid.

 

[Philothea53]

I’m sorry, but aren’t priests sinners as well? Of course I’mnot saying he is sinning in this instance, but to say the reason he is not accurately portraying the evidence is because he is a priest, well that seems silly. I’ve seen priests do things wrong all the time.

That said, I do believe he is accurately portraying the evidence which he team collected. But isn’t that antedoctal evidence?

THIS WILL NOT TURN INTO A DISCUSSION OF FATHER PAVONE’S INTEGRITY. IF IT DOES I WILL DO MY BEST TO MAKE SURE THIS THREAD IS SHUT DOWN.

 

[KarenNC]

I’m sorry, but aren’t priests sinners as well? Of course I’mnot saying he is sinning in this instance, but to say the reason he is not accurately portraying the evidence is because he is a priest, well that seems silly. I’ve seen priests do things wrong all the time.

That said, I do believe he is accurately portraying the evidence which he team collected. But isn’t that antedoctal evidence?

I would have to say that all the evidence we have been shown so far is indeed anecdotal evidence. It is possible that he has other, more objective, evidence, but we would need to be able to look at that to see what it actually says and the criteria and methods used to collect to have any idea of reliability or relevance to the question.

 

[boppaid]

From Fr. Pavone’s article at post # 747.

1. I too am concerned about little children who see graphic images. I am also concerned about the littler children those images depict. The key factor that will make the difference in how children react to seeing anything disturbing is the role of their parents, who are present in a loving and comforting way, answering their questions and calming their fears.

I asked this before, but never got an answer. What about when children see these images and their parents are not around? Hard to explain and comfort a child about a pic the parent hasn’t seen.

 

[KarenNC]

THIS

Sorry, you seem to have left out a link???

 

[Philothea53]

Sorry, you seem to have left out a link???

Sorry. In my anger I hit the enter key a little to fast.

 

[boppaid]

By the way, why haven’t you included our good buddy vern humphrey? What is he chopped liver these days?

What’s your obsession with chopped liver? Methinks you’ve been craving some lately… Eeeeew.

EDITED TO ADD: that was a joke, before you start thinking I’m flaming or anything. I was trying to lighten up the thread.

Guess what? You just got yourself some homework. Email the good father and ask him yourself. Let us know how he replies to you. We will be praying that his reply has some effect on your heart. May your eyes too be blessed.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but Karen isn’t Catholic. And most non-Catholic pastors are, indeed, allowed to marry. so, rather than offering snarky comments, wouldn’t it have been so charitable of you to simply inform her that Catholic priests aren’t allowed to marry?

 

[Philothea53]

I asked this before, but never got an answer. What about when children see these images and their parents are not around? Hard to explain and comfort a child about a pic the parent hasn’t seen.

And the preschool child in question would see these images without their parents around because they are where? Solo at the Mall? Picking up a burger at McDonald’s?

Another stupid question.

 

[seekerz]

Instead of saying something outright, you used innuendo. It will be clear to any reasonable person what that innuendo was about.

Let the record speak for itself.

You’ve already said this. Numerous times. The bottom line is that, by saying this, you open a possibility in the reader’s mind that Fr Pavone is withholding relevant evidence from his teachings. That possibility does not exist in reality, but only in your unsubstantiated OPINION.

Moreover, you seek to challenge Philothea’s evidence without offering any of evidence of your own to support your challenge. To make matters worse, you raise unfounded questions as to Fr Pavone withholding relevant information.

Let the record speak for itself.

Do you think Fr Pavone would withhold information this vital when he could report it quite easily by withholding the identities of the women from whom he got such alleged information. You are grasping at straws. You are inventing ‘evidence’ to bolster your point of view.

Moreover, Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. As I have explained to you numerous times now, let the record speak for itself.

Allow me to put it very simply to you: stop making false accusations against me, that’s not what this forum is for.

Someone not mentioning the occurrence of something cannot be offered as proof the the thing never happened and stating this fact does not in any way cast aspersions on the honesty of said someone. Do you tell everyone in your life everything that has ever happened to you? I think not. Does that make you dishonest? I think not.

 

[Philothea53]

What’s your obsession with chopped liver? Methinks you’ve been craving some lately… Eeeeew.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but Karen isn’t Catholic. And most non-Catholic pastors are, indeed, allowed to marry. so, rather than offering snarky comments, wouldn’t it have been so charitable of you to simply inform her that Catholic priests aren’t allowed to marry?

Karen has presented herself as a fairly well-educated person who is able to hold her own - even if I vehemently disagree with her. I think it is rather insulting for you to think for a minute that Karen doesn’t know that Catholic Priests are celibate. Might she have been going for sarcasm? Hmmmmm.

(Are you trying to nit-pick? Not very good at it, are you?)